- especially considering the highly obvious way they themselves bend and twist the 'news' to suit their own preferences. the fact here is that it is not possible to know the truth simply by 'finding the right news source and to then just keep listening'. to know the truth requires the combination of direct experience, intuition, investigation, enquiry and exploration - with anything less than this being a path that will involve uncertainty. it is fine to accept not knowing the full truth on a subject and to just stay open to learning more - but many of us are choosing instead to try to jump ahead, fill in the gaps with 'calculations' and then just move on in life. the result of this is that the minds of most of us are based on half truths, errors and incomplete assumptions and yet, worse still, we 'forget' that this is the case and continue on as if our thoughts are 'definitely correct'.
the topic of how to know the truth is a broad one and this text is intended to focus on the mainstream media's accusations against alleged 'fake news' sites - so back to that topic:
i have seen a couple of lists published that are claimed to be of sites that publish 'fake news', either publishing entirely fake news or partially fake news. the authors of the lists generally say to 'only trust mainstream news sources' such as fox/cnn/bbc (yes, the same fox news that is well known to put out a long stream of easily disproven lies and sometimes finds their ‘trusted sources’ to be arrested for major fraud crimes, for example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wayne-simmons-arrest-cia_us_561fd787e4b028dd7ea6fd43?o3v26gvi) – hey, while we’re on the topic of fox news, why not add in this breakdown of various neuro linguistic programming techniques used by ‘trusted’ fox operatives in their interviews as they attempt to control the narrative (falsely) and implant ideas into the public consciousness:
those who are paying attention will see this ‘fake news offensive’ for what it clearly is - an attempt by the well established state mind control and propaganda machinery (experts in putting out fake news) to regain control of it's herd of humans to stop them looking to other sources of information that contradict the mainstream paradigm and may lead them to break their own programming. none the less though, there really are some sites on the lists that do put out fake news and for serious researchers that is an annoyance. annoying as the presence of these sites may be though, it is nothing compared to the problem of censorship and of 'bad mouthing' authors and entire website domain names who, in fact, may well be entirely reliable and have a very high success rate for the accuracy of their work.
as regular visitors to ureka may know, i do sometimes share links and stories from news reporters and researchers - when i am clear that either they are correct or at least they are well researched and sourced enough for the reader to do their own research and come to an accurate understanding of what is being said. one of the sources that i use regularly is james corbett as i usually agree with him and he has consistently gone to great lengths to always provide detailed sources for every reference and claim he makes and also uses a large pool of assistance online to help gather links, sources and data; an approach which works well and which cannot be matched by the mainstream media at this timing. it is clear to me that james' inclusion on the 'fake news' list is a major red flag about the agenda behind the creation of the lists, since his output is among the very best sourced and hardest to discredit that i am aware of in the wider public eye. his work often discredits the mainstream media and, in fact, his main message is that the mainstream media are the really significant fake news sources - and i say the evidence concurs with his assessment. james’ work on 911 and exposing individuals in the american system who, at the VERY least, should be charged with serious crimes based on the evidence – is a major issue here since his message directly contradicts the highly contrived ‘official narrative’ and that is a very serious threat to the liers and manipulators who attempt to engineer society for their own power gain. here's james on this exact subject if you are interested to hear from him on this:
and furthermore, here's an alleged whistleblower on (alleged fake news source) RT claiming he and many others are paid by the CIA to spread fake news on mainstream media:
and while we're at it - here's proof that the media in america at least is heavily scripted and all the 'actors' appearing to be 'nice and smart people' are literally just acting and are not presenting any evidence of investigative credibility whatsoever:
i could go on and on here with examples and also remind you of how the vast majority of commercial media publications and channels are owned and operated by the same small group of corporations (5 or 6) - which means that of the vast array of magazines, radio/tv stations and websites that exist - the majority are controlled by no more than a couple of hundred people - tops. so to control the 'groupthink' of the world via this media system is not so difficult, provided the majority continue to believe the narrative put out via the mainstream media.
i suggest to think of the situation like this:
would you repeatedly go back for more information from someone who you knew spent an hour in make-up, learned a script and learned specifically how to 'sound correct' regardless of what they were being fed to tell you - if you met them on the street near you? would you honestly think 'yes, that's a trustworthy person - more than other people i meet and more than my own intuition can be trusted?' or would you be sure to cross the street, away from this apparently shifty 'confidence trickster' at the earliest opportunity? my suggestion is that in 'real life' most people would not trust this individual and yet once the person is 'on TV' and well lit, presented with spinning graphics and a powerful, authoritative sounding into music track is wrapped around them, we often are deceived into elevating them into a mental box of 'being trustworthy'.
psychologically, this is akin to the same pattern that blanketly proclaims that 'medical doctors are to be trusted', even in the face of great evidence that they too are often completely ignorant of the alleged 'science' that backs up their procedures and drug prescriptions - making them little better than the news reader who does no actual research and just takes large pay checks for being the mouth piece of large corporations. in the doctor's case they often are little more than the distribution wing of large drug companies and in the worst cases deliberately lie and even kill patients just to get commission from the corporations (as in this case of an oncologist falsely diagnosing people with cancer to get the massive commissions paid for prescribing courses of deadly chemotherapy: http://fataclaims.com/Home/FAQ#faq1).
the fact is that to know the truth requires an open mind, an open heart, an inquisitive nature, a strong will to know the truth and intent to never assume, guess or judge. once we are aligned in such a way, we can be exposed to liers and they may slow us down, but it is far better to be slowed down by being exposed to all information that is unfiltered by ‘vested interests’ than it is to be only given half the data due to the actions of self proclaimed ‘authorities’ having already removed the parts they don’t like! you are smart enough to not need to be channelled by corporate news media agents and ‘professors’ in state controlled universities you have never met – you only need to stop believing the propaganda that says you need to trust ‘the experts’ above your own genius, to begin a path of finding your own potential greatness!